
I lost £104,000 to a crypto scam but kept it secret for years out of shame: SALLY SORTS IT
In January 2022, I was tricked into a cryptocurrency investment promoted by a broker called WorldTradeCenter.
I only realised the promotion was fake after handing over £104,000. My Barclays bank account was drained.
I cashed in a Stocks and Shares ISA meant for my retirement, and took out loans to meet the requests of fraudsters who asked me to open an account with Revolut to buy crypto from legitimate brokers.
When I realised the con, I was embarrassed and became so depressed I couldn't tell friends and family.
It's only now that I can. Is there any way to recoup some of my losses?
Anon.
Sally Hamilton replies: For me to ask Barclays and Revolut to investigate, I needed to know the sequence of events.
You told me how an article had caught your eye in what you believed was Vogue magazine online, which described WorldTradeCenter and the experience of a client who used his investment to buy a yacht.
You think there must have been a link, which you clicked. This triggered communications via WhatsApp, mainly from a man calling himself Jonathan Miles.
The temptation was huge. As a self-employed single parent, you were struggling to keep your finances afloat.
Your daughter wanted to attend university abroad for a year. You were suffering from depression and on medication. You were an easy target.
The conmen encouraged you to test the water by committing just £10, to buy cryptocurrency from a broker, using cards linked to a Revolut account that you were persuaded to set up. When that quickly returned £82, this gave you confidence to invest more.
But they never let you take money out, always finding an excuse. There was pressure to add more to the Revolut account.
Over the months, you transferred £104,000. When you insisted you wanted to withdraw $71,400 on May 9, 2022, this was denied.
I believe this was when they decided they had gone as far as they could. In a last attempt to squeeze you dry, they told you the market had crashed and the business had collapsed.
Its 'finance department' contacted you to say it needed to return all the client money so it could operate again, but this required you to make more payments. In desperation, you paid up. Despite promises, your money was never returned.
The frightening realisation then dawned that you had been horribly cheated. There were days when you were so distressed you couldn't concentrate on work, home, or your daughter.
You do not recall whether Barclays, with whom you have banked since your teenage years, intervened to question transactions.
You found a note you had taken following a call from Barclays one evening in June 2022 – soon after the scam concluded – from someone claiming to be from the fraud department.
Your nerves were in tatters and you weren't sure the call was genuine. You brushed the caller off. You do not recall interactions with Revolut.
You spent three years trying to recover mentally and financially. When you felt confident enough to reveal all to me, you feared it was too late.
Under Financial Ombudsman Service rules, complaints can be considered within six years of an incident, so I knew Barclays and Revolut would be able to check records to see if they had done all they could to protect you.
I was not surprised to find the Cyprus-based WorldTradeCenter on the Financial Conduct Authority's warning list of unauthorised firms. The regulator states 'you should avoid dealing with this firm and beware of scams'.
Scam Watch
Households should beware a scam email claiming to be from streaming platform Disney+, consumer website Which? warns.
Fraudsters say your 'subscription renewal payment has been declined'.
The email asks you to click on the link in the email to input new payment information to avoid any disruption to your use of Disney's service.
Do not click on the link in the email. It leads to a fake website designed to steal your personal and financial details.
Instead, forward it to report@phishing.gov.uk.
Following my intervention, Barclays spent several weeks investigating. It maintains interventions were made. But last week, you received the news that it would be reimbursing £52,000, half your losses. You were elated.
Barclays says: 'We are extremely sorry that our customer fell victim to a sophisticated investment scam, and recognise it has had a profound impact on their life.
'After careful consideration, we have made a payment as a gesture of goodwill. As the funds were ultimately transferred to the scammer from the account with another bank, we have recommended they reach out to them for any further support.'
Revolut told me it was unable to trace the onward movements of funds sent to the crypto sites and there would be no reimbursement.
It said you were twice sent targeted warnings regarding impersonation scams and each time the payment was put on hold until you confirmed you wanted to proceed. You do not recall these warnings.
It says: 'Revolut works hard and invests heavily to protect our customers as best we can through our fraud prevention technologies, and we prevented over £600 m in potential fraud in 2024.
'Investment scams pose a real risk, with often life-changing sums being stolen. We urge customers to avoid so-called investment opportunities on social media platforms and ensure they undertake extensive due diligence prior to making investment decisions.
'If it looks too good to be true, it probably is.'
Ombudsman rules on Revolut safe account fraud
I featured a case in April last year where a small business was swindled out of £85,000 by a crook posing as a member of Revolut's fraud department.
The target moved funds in digital card transactions. Despite my plea that this was clearly a sophisticated fraud and it should have done more, Revolut, which offers banking-style services and at the time did not have a UK banking licence, declined to reimburse the firm. It said it issued warnings and steps in its authentication process were passed.
I encouraged the firm to seek the Financial Ombudsman's view. It ruled Revolut should reimburse 75 per cent of losses, plus 8 per cent interest, which it has received.
Straight to the point
In August last year my energy provider British Gas asked me if I wanted to renew my Energy Extra 50 service.
I've never used this and British Gas then said I would be due a £595.64 rebate. It keeps telling me a cheque would arrive soon but almost one year later there is no sign of it.
B. W., South-East London.
British Gas says the refund has been sent directly to your bank account. You signed up to this service – which reduces prices on boiler services and repairs – in July 2013 and payments were shown on every gas bill you have received.
***
In October, BT decided I needed fibre optic phones for my business, and these were installed soon after.
I had been charged £253.41 last August for my phone bill but in October this went up to £477.66, again in February to £482.24 and now £521.18 last month.
The Ombudsman has already said I was overcharged last year and I had a £600 refund – but this year the high bills have kept coming. BT said fibre optic would make my bills smaller.
S. E., via email.
BT has agreed to reduce your bill and says an error caused you to be charged for both old and new products when you moved across to fibre optic.
It has resolved previous billing errors, refunded the charges and given you a £150 goodwill gesture.
***
In March I travelled from London to Manchester via train. I later realised I'd left my car keys on the train.
I had a tracking device on them, which showed they were still on the train at the station.
I logged the keys at lost property but by the next day, they were in the car park of a train depot outside Manchester.
The train operator says no one had come into contact with my keys. It cost me £430 to get a new pair.
A. M., Manchester.
The train operator apologises and you have been offered two standard return tickets.
Write to Sally Hamilton at Sally Sorts It, Money Mail, Northcliffe House, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5TT or email sally@dailymail.co.uk — include phone number, address and a note addressed to the offending organisation giving them permission to talk to Sally Hamilton. Please do not send original documents as we cannot take responsibility for them. No legal responsibility can be accepted by the Daily Mail for answers given.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
17 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK's Halfords reports annual underlying pre-tax profit above market estimates
June 25 (Reuters) - British bicycle and car products retailer Halfords Group (HFD.L), opens new tab reported annual underlying pre-tax profit above market estimates on Wednesday, helped by its cost-saving and pricing measures. The company reported an underlying pre-tax profit of 38.4 million pounds ($52.30 million) for the year ended March 28, compared with an average analysts consensus of 36.3 million pounds, as per a company compiled poll. ($1 = 0.7342 pounds)


Reuters
21 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK's Babcock upgrades medium term forecast as defence needs rise
LONDON, June 25 (Reuters) - British defence engineering company Babcock (BAB.L), opens new tab forecast mid-single digit revenue growth in the medium term, upgrading guidance at a time when the UK is increasing spending on defence and energy security due to geopolitical instability.


Reuters
27 minutes ago
- Reuters
Israel-Iran war highlights Mideast's declining influence on oil prices
LONDON, June 25 - The contained move in oil prices during the Israel-Iran war highlights the increasing efficiency of energy markets and fundamental changes to global crude supply, suggesting that Middle East politics will no longer be the dominant force in oil markets they once were. The jump in oil prices following Israel's surprise attack on Iran was meaningful but relatively modest considering the high stakes involved in the conflict between the Middle East rivals. Benchmark Brent crude prices, often considered a gauge for geopolitical risk, rose from below $70 a barrel on June 12, the day before Israel's initial attack, to a peak of $81.40 on June 23 following the United States' strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Prices, however, dropped sharply that same day after it became clear Iran's retaliation against Washington – a well-telegraphed attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar that caused limited damage – was essentially an act of de-escalation. Prices then fell to below pre-war levels at $67 on Tuesday after U.S. President Donald Trump announced that Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire. The doomsday scenario for energy markets – Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of the world's oil and gas supplies pass – did not occur. In fact, there was almost no disruption to flows out of the Middle East throughout the duration of the conflict. So, for the time being, it looks like markets were right not to panic. The moderate 15% low-to-high swing during this conflict suggests oil traders and investors have slashed the risk premium for geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. Consider the impact on prices of previous tensions in the region. The 1973 Arab oil embargo led to a near quadrupling of oil prices. Disruption to Iranian oil output, opens new tab following the 1979 revolution led to a doubling of spot prices. Iraq's invasion of neighbouring Kuwait in August 1990 caused the price of Brent crude to double to $40 a barrel by mid-October. And the start of the second Gulf war in 2003 led to a 46% surge in prices. While many of these supply disruptions – with the exception of the oil embargo – ended up being brief, markets reacted violently. One, of course, needs to be careful when comparing conflicts because each is unique, but the oil market's response to major disruptions in the Middle East has – in percentage terms, at least – progressively diminished in recent decades. There are multiple potential explanations for this change in the perceived value of the Middle East risk premium. First, markets may simply be more rational than in the past given access to better news, data and technology. Investors have become extremely savvy in keeping tabs on near-live energy market conditions. Using satellite ship tracking and aerial images of oilfields, ports and refineries, traders can monitor oil and gas production and transportation, enabling them to better understand supply and demand balances than was possible in previous decades. In this latest conflict, markets certainly responded rationally. The risk of a supply disruption increased, so prices did as well, but not excessively because there were significant doubts about Iran's actual ability or willingness to disrupt maritime activity over a long period of time. Another explanation for the limited price moves could be that producers in the region – again, rational actors – learned from previous conflicts and responded in kind by building alternative export routes and storage to limit the impact of any disruption in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, producing around 9 million bpd, nearly a tenth of global demand, now has a crude pipeline running from the Gulf coast to the Red Sea port city of Yanbu in the west, which would have allowed it to bypass the Strait of Hormuz. The pipeline has capacity of 5 million bpd and could probably be expanded by another 2 million bpd. Additionally, the United Arab Emirates, another major OPEC and regional producer, with output of around 3.3 million bpd of crude, has a 1.5 million bpd pipeline linking its onshore oilfields to the Fujairah oil terminal that is east of the Strait of Hormuz. Both countries, as well as Kuwait and Iran, also have significant storage facilities in Asia and Europe that would allow them to continue supplying customers even through brief disruptions. Perhaps the most important reason for the world's diminishing concern over Mideast oil supply disruptions is the simple fact that a smaller percentage of the world's energy supplies now comes from the Middle East. In recent decades, oil production has surged in new basins such as the United States, Brazil, Guyana, Canada and even China. OPEC's share of global oil supply declined from over 50% in the 1970s to 37% in 2010 and further to 33% in 2023, according to the International Energy Agency, largely because of surge in shale oil production in the United States, the world's largest energy consumer. To be sure, the global oil market was well supplied going into the latest conflict, further alleviating concerns. Ultimately, therefore, the Israel-Iran war is further evidence that the link between Middle East politics and energy prices has loosened, perhaps permanently. So geopolitical risk may keep rising, but don't expect energy prices to follow suit. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI),, opens new tabyour essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab